Ok this is how addicted to oil we are

[nadinbrzezinski]

and why things like JUST doing public transit are not a real solution, but PART of the solution

This morning I took a shower. Well the water that needed to come was sent to me using a compressor, which runs either on electricity or diesel. And it was heated up by something running on either of them. Either way, you are talking of hydrocarbons here.

The clothes I donned have some of them on them, the obvious one are my tennis shoes.

To brew my coffee I used an electrical coffee maker, see hydrocarbons.

To heat up my Tamale, which has been in the freezer for a while, well again see hydrocarbons.

Now I drove to my locally owned coffee shop... and I ordered coffee. The water to clean up the mug used electricity to heat it up, and the coffee maker used electricity, you get the picture. Yes I could have biked to the local starbucks, but I would have had to come back and take the car to go pick up the meat for lunch, which I am now cooking on an electric stove.

By the way I cut my veggies on a plastic board that is quite ancient by now... I guess I could replace it with a bamboo one, but that bamboo one would take fuel to get clearly across the world.

The meat I bought was covered in plastic and on a Styrofoam tray... came packed that way from the plant, where again electricity was used to process this. The turkeys were in an industrial facility that used pretty much a lot of fuel to take care of them, and transported them on trucks to the slaughter facility and from there to the processing facility.

The vegies that went into the stew, I bought the other day at the farmer's market, where they had to be driven to, and where I had to drive too. They are locally grown and you and I can enter the argument on whether this is a good idea or not... but still fuel was used to process, and to transport. End of story.

Oh and the Marinara sauce was processed at a plant where all the raw material was brought to in trucks, where electricity was used to process then, and again more trucks, wrapping plastic and other things were used to process that and trucks were used to transport to a distro center, where electricity was used and fuel, and then on to trucks to transport to my local store.

So yes, public transit is part of the solution, but quite honestly... it goes much beyond public transit. We live in an oil civilization and we depend on it. To use a corny statement from an unpopular company right now, they accidentally hit the nail on the head, we need to start thinking beyond petroleum. And the time for that is near.

Nadin, who don't expect this to make a tinker's damn of a difference anyway.

[CreekDog]

1. I'm not *addicted* to oil

any more than I'm addicted to food.

but people need to get around and live their lives.

i don't get some sort of otherwise useless satisfaction off oil, it simply moves my car around and helps me get a lot of the products that i use regularly.

and i'm not addicted to oil because i'm perfectly happy to use practical alternatives and increasingly do.

i just hate sloppy use of the word "addicted".

use it right. you're the one always criticizing misconceptions --how bout this one?

:rant:

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. OUR CIVILIZATION IS... no matter what you think about it

and without it, our civilization will collapse, so fast your head will spin. .Oh and this is not the US... this is global.

[CreekDog]

5. your line of argument is thought provoking

not very illuminating.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Have it your way

I have heard many excuses from addicts that you'd consider addicts. Not that different actually from the excuses I hear when it comes to oil.

[CreekDog]

13. Okay, I'll just say it: you're getting stupid with this

like it's really useful to characterize using transportation and heating as akin to being hooked on meth.

if that's true, then you have to admit you are addicted to breathing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. No, but I am addicted to oil

you see I need water and air to live... oil, not so much... except that the civilization I live in does.

[NoNothing]

9. The other poster has a point, though

Saying we are addicted to "oil" is not quite accurate. What we are "addicted" to, and have been since the beginning of civilization, is energy. Energy is power, to create that which does not exist, to destroy that which does, to alter the world to make it more comfortable for us. It just so happens that oil is, at this point in time, the most convenient access to energy. But - it is not the only one. If we can use other energy sources to take the place of oil, we can wean ourselves off of oil quite easily. What we probably *can't* do is wean ourselves off energy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Past is prologue, we haven't until we have no choice

that is a sign of addiction...

But whatever.

[NoNothing]

11. What?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. I could recommend a few history books but why bother?

[Statistical]

3. Electricity is source neutral. Not a very good example.

I would remove all examples of electricity from your post.

The coffee pot doesn't care if the electricty coming down the wire was made by hydrocarbons, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, etc.

Of all forms of energy electricity is the easiest one "fixed". A kWh is a kWh regardless of where it comes from.

Heating is slightly harder but easily solved.
A magnitude harder is transportation. You will never see an battery powered cargo ship, or passenger jet.
The hardest of all is industrial applications (coal for steel, oil for plastics, etc).

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. It is source neutral but how it is it being produced

and why do you think I mentioned the plastic board?

Or the clothes I wear...

I forgot my computer. No hydrocarbons, I will pose, no computers.

[Statistical]

7. Well your OP was about oil.

<1% of our electrical energy comes from oil.

The point is using 30 examples of electricity is silly. They are all electricity and every single one could be powered by an alternate method. Why not name 1000 different things that use electricity, or 100,000 or a billion. Would that strengthen the argument.

It dilutes the argument to say electricity must come from oil. You could put solar panels on your roof tomorrow and never use hydrocarbons to power you ELECTRICAL energy needs every again. The problem comes from the 80%+ of energy that isn't electrical.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. They COULD, but they are NOT

that is the fucking point. We depend on the stuff.

Now here is a less transparent use of oil for most people. GREEN REVOLUTION. Google it up.

[Statistical]

12. That isn't addiction. That is economics or more simply greed.

For electricity right now this very second you could use 0% hydrocarbons (so could I BTW). You don't. why?

What is the only downside to powering your home by solar for example ....... Cost.
If anything you (and our species) is addicted to cheap energy.

If you can't get the fact that electricity is the most fungible resource on the planet then I can't help you.

Transportation, fertilizer, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plastics, are better examples for our addiction to oil.
There are no easy solutions to replacing oil in those sectors.

You could stop using "oil" (I assume you really mean hydrocarbons) for electricity tomorrow. That isn't addiction that is simply economics.

The only thing preventing you from not using solar power is $$$ that can't be said for other uses of oil.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. It is not wheether it is fungilble or not

is that we are NOT...

I understand that electricity can be produced using water, steam, and a slew of other methods.

Right now most of our energy is produced in coal or oil driven plants. THAT IS A FACT.

If you don't get that, well to quote you, I can't help you.

[Statistical]

32. Electricity produced from oil is negligble. Less than 1% in 2009.

It is exactly because electricity is fungible and "oil" electricity is worth no more than low cost hydro-electric electricity, oil is rarely used anymore. Quite simply oil is far to valuable to burn and make electricity with.

We use coal because it is cheap. If coal were more expensive than wind/nuclear/solar we would stop using it in a second. That is not indicative of an addiction. That is simply economics. Coal generation peaked in 2007. A carbon tax would make it go down very rapidly.

I think you understand how electricity is different than all your other examples but you simply like arguing a lost point. Have fun.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Whatever. I realize that this is hard to get

but our civilization DEPENDS on cheap oil. We built on it. But if you think otherwise, have a good day.

[Statistical]

41. I never said we don't need oil.

We simply don't need oil to produce electricity.

Including electricity (a form of energy easily replaced) in with a mix of resources using oil that can't be easily replaced (pesticides, fertilizers, shipping, pharmaceuticals, plastic, etc) simply weakens the argument.

That was my original post. Nice straw-man claiming I think the world can run without oil. The modern world utterly needs oil however the world doesn't need to BURN OIL TO PRODUCE ENERGY. We "waste" most of our oil usage in methods that don't require oil.

Non-energy uses of oil (pesticides, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastic, etc) which are very difficult (if not impossible) to replace with non hydrocarbon forms make up a tiny fraction of global usage.

As oil gets more and more expensive the idea of burning this ultra valuable resource will seem more and more foolish.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. The point is that WE ARE, to be specific we are using another HYDROCARBON

COAL, but we are.

WE SHOULD MOVE AWAY FROM IT, but right now WE ARE NOT. Is this that hard to comprehend?

First thing is solving a problem is identifying the EXTENT of the problem...

[Statistical]

50. We are. In US electical generation by coal peaked in 2007.

A carbon tax would accelerate that decline nicely.

A carbon tax on gasoline will accelerate the shift to altnernative forms of transportation more quickly.

We know solar/nuclear/wind have high capital costs but no (low in case of nuclear) fuel costs. Thus as fossil fuels operating costs rise they will be naturally replaced by alternatives.

Number of coal plants in the US declined in 2007, 2008, 2009 (and like 2010). Amount of solar & wind has increased. utilities didn't do that because they love the planet. They did that because fossil fuels are getting expensive.

The same thing will happen to personal vehicles over the next 20 years. Being "green" won't make someone dump a gasoline powered vehicle for an electric one. $12.00 per gallon gasoline will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. We are talking across each other

have a good day

:hi:

[tallahasseedem]

59. +1

Great post!

[Ozymanithrax]

18. Oil is used in the production, the creation of product facilities, in parts..

critical to the function of those facilities. Oil or other petro chemicals aren't just used in transportation. Coffee beans are grown with oil based fertilizers, harvested by oil based machines or humans delivered to the spot by oil, wearing oil based cloths, made by oil based machines Coffee, one harvested, is roasted in oil based roasters, delivered in oil based ships. Before oil's wide use, the international market for coffee, and damned near everything else, was a small fraction of the size today. You just don't reach the levels of efficiency with coal and certainly not with wind power.

[Statistical]

20. My list wasn't intended to be exaustive.

My point is exactly that. There are situations where oil is extremely useful and no good altenative exists.

However three areas where oil/hydrocarbons can be replaced rather "easily"

1) Electricity - The OP routinely mentioned electricity. All watts coming out of the wire are the same. There is no reason to use oil (or any hydrocarbon) for electricity. The only reason we do is simple economics.

2) Personal transportation. Heavy transportation & industrial equipment will need higher energy densities of hydrocarbons but there is no reason that in 20 years we couldn't have hydrocarbon products limits to non-personal use.

3) Heating. Oil isn't needed for heating. Geothermal heat pumps are very effective and work in 90%+ of the planet. Once again the only reason not widely used is economics.

Carbon tax will be necessary to resolve the low internalized cost of hydrocarbons however for the above applications there is no technical reason we need to use oil or any hydrocarbon.

Now things like pesticides, fertilizers, industrial applications, plastics, etc it will be much harder to find an alternative to oil. We should start with long hanging fruit. Electricity, personal transportation, and heating can be non fossil fuel within a generation.... IF WE WANT TO!

[Ozymanithrax]

28. My point, and the OP's, is that oil is the basis of our civilization...

that covers the entire planet. There is nothing in our daily lives, or those of most of our fellow humans, that is not touched multiple times by a reliance on oil.

Retooling a civilization that encomopases an entire planet in a generation is a pretty tall order.

It isn't a matter of "if we want to." There is no force on earth today capable of getting 5 billion humans to march to the same tune. Here in the U.S. we are so reliant on oil in everything that we are probably the lest likely nation to create such a change.

[Statistical]

38. I agree oil is indispensible.

However MOST of the oil is used in methods that it could be easily be replaced.

There is a difference between the planet needing oil (in some quantity) and saying the planet needs to burn oil to produce steam or power an internal combustion engine.

As the price of oil rises it will become more and more obvious that oil is off the charts valuable and it is STUPID to burn it to produce energy, given that we have other cheaper methods to produce energy.

Same reason we don't burn rare earth elements to power generators, or use tons of gold as solder for common water pipes. Scarcity will cause areas where oil be replaced.... TO BE REPLACED.

The earth needs oil. No doubt about that and people who say otherwise are living in a universe powered by unicorn poop. The earth doesn't need to burn oil to produce energy.

[Ozymanithrax]

46. The planet doesn't need anything. Human civilization needs oil...

Yes, we can come up with technologies that use oil less intensly, but we then have to build an infrastructre. Human civilizaton has built an oil infrastructre. Changing to something else requires that we develop the technology and then build the infrastructre to utilize that technology. To day, improvements in efficiency have only driven an incrased use of oil. If it works so well in one applicaiton, lets use it somewhere else.

Without some way of guiding an entire civilization, I don't think it will chage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. A basic example will serve here

without facing the ugly reality of where the electricity came from, when they released the Electric Car they had a little issue of building charging stations from the ground up. Most of the FEW that were built are gone. Now that we are back to building electric cars, ignore the source of the electricity for a moment, we still need to build that infrastructure from the bottom up. The same goes for Hydrogen cell vehicles. I could put those out, well not me, the industry could... but there is this little problem with fueling infrastructure, which will be billions in cost.

[Statistical]

52. Which is as economic problem.

Costs will rise however fossil fuel prices will rise even faster meaning people will migrate to save money.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Or the civilization will collapse

see Bronze Age...

[Statistical]

54. Unlikely.

Cost will rise alternatives will be used. A car that costs 20x as much per mile to run on gasoline won't be as popular as a car which runs on electricity and costs 1/20th the cost per mile.

Economics teach us resources will flow towards the most economic solution. It is unlikely price of electricity will sky rocket because there are so many diverse methods to produce electricity and that will keep costs down. Thus as hydrocarbons rise in cost they will be used less and less (and eventually not at all) where an economic alternative exists.

The only place of concern is the areas where there are no effective alternatives. Plastics for example. That will be partially offset by increased recycling though. Recycling will become more valuable as plastics become more valuable.

We can survive cost of plastic tripling. We can't survive the cost of energy tripling. Luckily it won't. We will simply stop using high cost fossil fuels to produce energy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Given that historically we have had civilizatiions crash

I don't discount it.

See Bronze age

See Maya (that one is very well studied by the way)

See Rome.

Just from the top of my head

[blindpig]

14. So kill the pusher. n/t

[Catherina]

15. A sensible, logical suggestion n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

17. An unworkable solution...unless you want to kill half the planets population...

So which half should we allow to starve to death while we compleely reorganize our agricultural practices to those common in the early part of the 20th century?

[rucky]

19. I'm pretty sure that's the question...

that turned liberals into neocons.

[Ozymanithrax]

21. I don't' think they were asking what it would take to give up oil...

Neoconjobs are about furthering the American Empire, at lest that is how I saw them.

My observations here are just comments about the state of the civilization we live in. Someone living near the end of he Mayan Civilization, or the Bronze Age civilization may very well have thought these same thoughts. Mayan populations plummeted by as much as 75% when their own use of specific technologies that allowed them to exceed the carrying capacity of their land caused ecological disruption that, literally, made life untenable. The difference is the orders of magnitude between their civilization and ours. We either find a new source of petrochemicals, a different resource that is cheap, abundant, and less damaging, or we will eventually collapse. Such collapses are common throughout history.

[blindpig]

43. I speak of that corporate entity...

for a start.

Yes, we will have to use the stuff until we can do better, but in the meantime the management of such enterprise should be for the commonweal, not profits. It is the pursuit of maximum profit which was the immediate cause of this catastrophe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. While in prnciple I do beleive oil should be in the commons

I chose to live in reality

Reality number one is not in the American DNA... for many historic reasons.

Reality number two, even in the commons accidents happen...

[blindpig]

55. Your history is very faulty

There is a great history of American socialism going back to the 1850's. It has been almost entirely buried, very much on purpose, by the dominant culture. I will pm you a link to an example as the site is unappreciated in these parts.

Yes accidents do happen, but they are much more likely to happen when reckless pursuit of profit is involved.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. I will note this to you

I hold a masters in History. Right now going though the HISTORY OF LABOR... and nationalizing of assets OUTSIDE a war... is rare indeed. Yes, it has happened, but we have this love... to the point of being maladaptive mind you, of private property and our history is partly about protecting private property.

I could list quite a bibliography by now, and especially in the last thirty years it is quite the misunderstanding of Adam Smith and what he meant. Just don't tell that to the "fans of the free market" who have never bothered readying the holy book... (Yes I make jokes about the Wealth of Nations, but as much as I look at it, the more our ahem trust in the market, has a lot in common with organized religion, all the way to sacred texts)

The big outlier to this rarity of respect for the rights of property owners... please all hilarity is welcomed here, is the end of slavery... which was all about private property (yes that is the way slaves were seen) versus human rights.


And thanks got the PM... unappreciated place indeed.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. The word "addicted" is way overused...

Oil is not an addiction. Neither is it like water or air. Humans lived just fine in civilizations that did not depend on the hyper utilization of a single, cheap resource. Water and air are physiological needs. Oil is a convenience.

The computer we use to communicate on this board would simply not exist without oil. It is not just in the paint, circuit boards, insulation, those are just layers of use.

The green revolution of the 60's allows humanity to grow enough food to exceed the carrying capacity of the planet. That is why all other species that compete with us for food and resources are being stuffed and preserved as "specimens of extinct organisms." Because of oil based fertilizers, and ships to carry oil based fertilizers to farmers, and farm equipment to spread oil based fertilizers, and other farm equipment to plant, tend, and sow food crops, we are both literally and symbolically eating oil.

Without oil, crop yields would plummet to, at minimum, the level we enjoyed in the 1930's and 1940's (2.3 billion people suffering from regular malnutrition). The food for the rest of us could not be grown. Moving to local suppliers of food won't work because the all require the same intense use of oil. Subsistence farming depends on the climate, soil conditions, agricultural practices and the crop grown, and it takes from half an acre to 10 acres depending on those conditions. It is labor intensive and produces no surplus. Shortages are common do to variable climate. We are not going to feed 5 billion people by subsistence farming.

So oil isn't an addiction, it is a requirement of our civilization, the first such civilization ever to spread across the entire surface of the earth. As a civilization, we will rise and fall with it's relative abundance. As oil becomes more difficult to obtain, and the ecological degradation due to its use spreads, our civilization will be wracked by crises until it collapses (See Mayans, Easter Island, Bronze Age Civilization, and others) or a new source of the crude stuff is found. Tinkering around the edges will not change the outcome.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. And when soemting becomes dysfunctional

and we cannot break away from it, (in this case for functional reasons) yes it takes the characteristics of an addiction.

We could, for example, produce electricity using solar... but the panels require oil to produce right now.

Now this mess might be the kind of intervention we need... somehow I suspect it will fail...

[Statistical]

27. " We could, for example, produce electricity using solar... but the panels require oil to produce"

Why?

[Ozymanithrax]

36. Because everything requires oil to produce.

Casting parts, machining them, and other idustrial processes require oil. Sure, we could return to rubber insulation on wires, except there isn't enough rubber on the planet to do that. In order to create solar panels without oil you would need to develop whole new industries that work without oil. Circut boards in equipment are plastic. We would have to create an industrial source of non petrochemical plastics. We could, for instasnce, genetically develop plants that grow oils (people are already doing that) but those plants must compete for crop space with food plants.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Becuase of the industrial poocesses involved

for the same reason my computer's innards have quite a bit of oil involved in their production.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. A civilization is like a pyramid..Oil is the base of our pyramid...

It affects everything. Without finding a replacement the underpinnings will continue to become less stable.

I applaud people who seek to find ways around the oil dilemma. Rebuilding an entire civilization from the ground up has never been done before. We have never before had a civilization that encompassed the entire planet before.

Oil companies serve a role in the civilization, they are not just entities dedicated to making money. For a long time I looked at companies as individual self serving entities. Now I see their place in an oil civilization is critical. We are inextricably interdependent. They bring the stuff to us that we require, a rather ugly bargain if you ask me. In order to end the reliance on oil we have to create tens of thousands of new interdependent technologies. I have my doubts as to the likelihood of that happening.

[Statistical]

47. We don't need to replace all forms of oil usage.

Non-energy forms of oil usage (plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, etc) make up a minority of oil consumption. Last time I checked it was something like 20%.

We use oil for energy because it is cheap. That "problem" will take far of itself. 20 years ago oil made up 10% of electrical generation in this country today it is <1%. Why? Oil electricity is now more expensive than other forms.

The planet needs to give up using oil/hydrocarbons for energy. That will happen naturally as oil prices continue to rise.

Take person vehicle for example.

40mpg gasoline powered car vs. 250Wh Electric powered car.

At $0.10 per kwh, 12,000 miles has a fuel cost of $300 annually, $3,000 over 10 year vehicle lifespan.

At $3.00 per gallon the gasoline vehicle cost $9,000 (+$6,000 more)
At $4.00 per gallon the gasoline vehicle cost $12,000 (+$9,000 more)
At $6.00 per gallon the gasoline vehicle cost $18,000 (+$15,000 more)
At $10.00 per gallon the gasoline vehicle cost $30,000 (+$27,000 more)
At $15.00 per gallon the gasoline vehicle cost $45,000 (+$42,000 more)
At $20.00 per gallon the gasoline vehicle cost $60,000 (+$57,000 more)

People won't abandon oil powered vehicles because they are "green" they will abandon them because they like "green" $$$.

[NoNothing]

60. Exactly

The OP complains that "here is no force on earth today capable of getting 5 billion humans to march to the same tune." But there is: prices. Increase the price of oil and witness a spontaneous, worldwide effort to eliminate the use of oil wherever possible - even without the need for centralized command and control.

[TransitJohn]

22. Water sent by a compressor?

Where do you live where they have such an alien water distribution system?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. So how do you get water ABOVE ground level?

Like I don't know an apartment building... I know alien, very.

[TransitJohn]

25. Pressure.

Same way it flows out of a hydrant at street level. :crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

Well you see when I lived in a home

growing up, I actually saw with my own eyes the electrical compressor that got water up.

I am willing to bet that there is one in this complex, or actually a few of them.

:eyes: to you too.

There is a limit to that pressure you know... and the higher you got to drive a column of water, the more external power you need for that. It is pretty basic physics.

[TransitJohn]

35. So your taps don't work during a blackout?

The home you grew up in probably had a pump (not a compressor) because you had a well.

On edit: Almost all municipal water systems derive water pressure from gravity. Yes, it is pretty basic physics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. No we didn't have a well

but keep trying... we all know water magically rises...

[TransitJohn]

40. No, it falls...what do you think water towers are for?

The tiny bit of energy expended to pump water up there is paid back manyfold over by using Earth's gravity, which is what pressurizes municipal water systems. What is this magically rising bunk you're on about? This shit isn't that hard...the scientific illiteracy around here is equal to that of FR.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. No water tower anywhere in sight...

or for real.

in this town.

By the way, how the fuck do you think they get water up 20 flights? PRESSURE? Nice joke...

One flight, two flights, perhaps, 20 no way.

And by the way, what do you think was used to HEAT that water up? Faerie dust?

[TransitJohn]

56. Smoke a number.

It's not my fault you don't know how your municipal water system works. Let me know who you call out to work on your water compressors. :rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Given I used to do firefighting

I am familiar with the system.

I might be using the wrong term, but getting water up to 20 flights is not pressure from your municipal water system. And as you were told, if you have a water reservoir or water towers, which San Diego don't have... no matter how hard you try and laugh... you still energy to get that water up there.

You see I cannot get something out of nothing. Those of us who did pay attention in Physics class learned about this stupid little principle called the Law of Conservation of Energy, here you go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

[Statistical]

76. .

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Why I said SAN DIEGO

we have a reservoir, but water towers are not the in thing here.

For the record somebody has been trying for a while... perhaps the quake will point out why we need a system, alas we don't

[Statistical]

98. That photo IS from San Diego.

:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. Here is the deal

water towers in San Diego are NOT common.

Water comes form Lake Hodges mostly, and small high in the hills reservoirs

http://www.theleucadiablog.com/2008/01/how-many-millions-of-gallons-of-fresh.html

And of course outside places like the usual suspects...

This one here is a LANDMARK, not part of the system

http://www.beachcalifornia.com/sunset7.html

And the same goes for this

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9Q0_North_Park_Water_Tower__San_Diego_CA

Here you go, the water district for ya...

http://www.sdcwa.org/about/member-agencies.phtml

[Statistical]

57. You are right about towers but wrong about this...

"The tiny bit of energy expended to pump water up there is paid back manyfold over by using Earth's gravity,"

Law of conservation of energy tells us otherwise.
The energy required to pump the water into the towers is the same as the energy used when water flows from the tower.

The reason for towers vs. pumps (no such thing as water compressor) is much simpler.....

A water tower is essentially a giant water "battery". By putting the water in a tower (vs. just using a pump) you can:
a) still have water pressure even in power loss
b) use pump to "recharge" water tower continually even when there is no demand (run pumps 24/7 to refill tower while people sleep so it is "charged" for next day)
c) have a buffer for high demand that would exceed pumps capacity to maintain pressure.

Physics is a bitch though, she gives no free lunches. The energy required to pump water into the tower is exactly the same as the energy required to pump water directly into the municipal water system.

Still a water compressor is just silly. Water doesn't compress very well so any such water compressor would use a lot of energy for very little gain.

[TransitJohn]

58. Duly noted!

:hi:

[Hempathy]

101. They didn't have pumps where you grew up...?

:shrug:

[paparush]

29. Actually, your electricity is probably generated by coal, so you should, you know, sleep better.

:sarcasm:

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Yep another source of carbon based energy

I know.

[defendandprotect]

64. Military is largest user of oil --

Public transportation has the power to take almost ALL cars off the roads --

NOT a minimal thing!

Many people take showers heated with solar energy --

The sidewalks are getting hot enough to brew coffee and heat a tamale --

In fact, put some tea bags out in a jar of water and you'll get TEA!

"Meat" for lunch? Do you understand the impact animal-eating has on the planet?

If you stand still long enough, you're in danger of having someone come along and

cover you in plastic --

The meat I bought was covered in plastic and on a Styrofoam tray... came packed that way from the plant, where again electricity was used to process this. The turkeys were in an industrial facility that used pretty much a lot of fuel to take care of them, and transported them on trucks to the slaughter facility and from there to the processing facility.

Look how much of this you could skip if you stuck just with veggies -- !!

The vegies that went into the stew, I bought the other day at the farmer's market, where they had to be driven to, and where I had to drive too. They are locally grown and you and I can enter the argument on whether this is a good idea or not... but still fuel was used to process, and to transport. End of story.

Farmer's market and LOCAL production is an improvement on huge grocery chains and food dragged

from Peru, Mexico and Guatemala. PLUS if it was organic food then no petroleum based fertilizer

was thrown all over it!

You could have bought some plum tomatoes while you were at the farmer's market and sauteed them -

again skipping all you describe to deliver a jar of Marinara sauce to you!

Agree -- we need a total change in culture -- begin with patriarchy "the bird with one wing" --

let's overturn capitalism -- the core of which is exploitation of nature and humans!

Note that last time in 1992 Scientists held a press conference to WARN HUMANITY re Global Warming

and the cultural change that had to happen to address it, the press was silent -- absolutely

silent on it!


Nadin, who don't expect this to make a tinker's damn of a difference anyway.

Nadin -- there are many obvious changes you can make -- and we can all make -- to overcome

just the things you've discussed!

And, of course, we need our government to be encouraging production of electric cars!!

And, alternative forms of energy --

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. And they are the first ones to go at the greener technologies

no, not because they like hugging trees. This little shit called strategic and logistical exposure.

Of course going for biofuels opens the road to displacing food crops.

And if you looked at TOTAL oil use, in all processes, that are the basis of our ciilization, they are a big user, but not the biggest. If you only think of gas, well yes, yes they are. But I am looking at this from a much wider point of view.

[defendandprotect]

67. Military is still largest user of petroleum . . . right now --

though I tend to think we have somewhere in the MIC some people who aren't simply

MIC, the part of it which is, is dumb.

The other part has warned Bush re Global Warming being a bigger threat to USA than

"terrorism." Presumably there are some non-fanatics who understand the intelligence

of overturning DADT -- and they would probably also be willing to combine the services

to save 28% of our MIC budget! But too often it seems they are not in charge.

Perhaps just whistleblowing?


nadin . . . unfortunately, you're usually looking at things from a narrow point of view . . .

reread my previous reply to you!

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. No they are not... they are close to the top, but they are not

not when you take into account ALL USES, ranging from your gas, to all the industrial processes, and all that.

They are evil... I know, but I prefer to live in reality. We are an oil dependent civilization. By the way, the agriculture sector uses more... you just happen to eat it.

[defendandprotect]

72. That was info from Thom Hartman the other day . . . what do you have?

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. What do I have, the Green Revolution

you might want to go ahead on google on it, and how our agricultural system depends on fuel that deeply.

Here is a huge freaking clue when we finally have to stop that... the stark choice will be, what billion dies this year... and no, I am not kidding, we humans have gone well over the carrying capacity of this planet.

[defendandprotect]

78. The subject was the military's use of petroleum . . .

Yes -- we're throwing petroleum based fertilizer all over our farm land --

destroying the nutrition of food/vegetables --

The problem with food distribution isn't quantity . . . it's cost.


Remember the burning oil wells in Iraq and how long it took to put them out

after we invaded? Would it have happened without Gulf War I?

MIC is the most destructive force on the planet -- right wing and dumb --

Blackwater -- Halliburton --

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Alas I am not talking of the military

but our civilization. Quite a bit more far afield than JUST the military.

If we were talking of a limited area that woudl be a different story. But I am talking of not even the US... but a GLOBAL civilization. The US is a major user of this black stuff, but China and India are catching up to our use and FAST. We are talking of an energy source that is at the base of a pyramid for OUR CIVILIZATION, and once again... not talking of the US, but a world culture.

See how much wider afield I am going here?

And when looked from that POV green revolution makes the US Military use not look as horrific... (which it is)

By the way this is what the OP is about, not the military. How you, me, your neighbors, our industries, yes the military, are dependent on this. We have built 21st century civilization on this. And you can multiply this by 6+ billion people by the way. We all use oil, we all do, not just uncle Sam...

[defendandprotect]

Do you recall my saying military was largest user of petroleum...based on

info from Thom Hartmann . . . ??

And I asked you on what basis you were disputing that info?

And where you got your info from?

That was the subject we were working on --

Go back to it if you wish --

But, let's keep things clear --


Manwhile, re our civilization --

it is violent, patriarchal and heavily based in wars -- that's our history!

Whatever China and India are doing, America has set the pace -- capitalism has set the culture

of exploitation of nature and humans.

Even more so since we've turned our industry over to those nations which require more energy

to produce the products we used to produce! And US capitalism did that in order to "harvest

slave labor" all over the globe.

You are presuming too much about oil -- we've lived without it --

And we have to learn to live without burning fossil fuels entirely or we will lose the ability

to survive on this planet. In fact, we may have already done that -- and we may have already

destroyed this planet's ability to survive!

That's what most of us understand from the highest perspective.


If we want to survive, we have to end patriarchy -- "the bird with one wing" --

and end patriarchal violence/wars.

If you want to survive, move to vegetables and stop eating animals.

And remember that Africa had a civilization long before Western Europeans . . . in fact

at the time that Europeans were busy in Medieval insanities!!


Additionally, the focus on overpopulation begun in the 1960's and increased call for better

birth control/family planning methods and reproductive freedom was another casualty of religious

fanatacism and capitalism's need for labor which reversed the campaign.

Keep in mind that it wasn't until the late 1960's that even married couples won the right to

gain access to birth control!!

[William Z. Foster]

66. not true

This is a way to district people from objective external reality, and get them to focus on themselves, their personal choices and lifestyles. That supports reactionary and right wing politics.

Oil is very recent, and society - the important things about society - have not changed much as a result. As late as WWI there were only a few in the British government, Churchill being the main example, who even understood that oil was going to be important at all. In my lifetime we saw the rise of plastics and other oil-derived products. Life was just fine without those. Better, if you ask me.

It can be argued - I would so argue - that things were better before oil, and that they could be much better without oil.

The rulers, the wealthy, have f*cked things up royally - they have just about destroyed the planet, they have crushed and destroyed indigenous peoples, sustainable cooperative communities, human culture, the environment. Now they want us to blame ourselves rather than them - "we are addicted to oil." Bullshit. They SOLD us on oil, just as they sold us on glorious Wall Street, and on every scam the investors have been pulling, Now they want US - the working people - to face austerity measures because THEY - the wealthy few - stole everything from us.

Everything you are talking about is part of the aberrant and destructive American suburban lifestyle, enjoyed by the privileged few at the expense of the rest of the world. That has to go, yes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. It went well over your head...

to be expected...

Hey SKINNER we need a smiley for going over head...

:whoosh:

[William Z. Foster]

70. I just read it again

No, absolutely nothing went over my head.

Why not respond to the points I made, instead of pasting snark about the messenger?

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Read the last paragraph

perhaps then you'll get it.

The Bronze age and it's collapse will be a free clue here.

[William Z. Foster]

73. you expressed a point of view

I expressed a different point of view.

If you want to debate the two opposing points of view, than do so. I am right here. Support and defend your view. If not, that is fine too. But let others read both points of view and decide for themselves. We don't need snarky posts about "clues" and whatever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. When it comes to you I only have snark left

sorry...

By the way another free clue, this has NOTHING to do with personal choices... but what makes a civilization, not just the US by the way. I fear I don't have a US Centric, bad citizens POV on this.

But when it comes to you, only snark is left.

[William Z. Foster]

77. whatever

"If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

I am not snarking at you. I patently read and answered dozens of snarky posts from you, and have not attacked you in any way.

Make your case, if you can. If not, others are free to present their views without being attacked for doing that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. Tried to have a nice discussion with you

and it went nowhere, so whatever. Have a good day.

[William Z. Foster]

90. well...

Try harder.

Or don't. It is up to you.

If you are going to post opinions on a political board, you run the risk of someone disagreeing with you. Debate them and defend and support your position. If you don't want to do that, or can't, then ignore them, I guess.

[defendandprotect]

85. No . . . when it comes to many of us, you only have "snark" . . . and "clues" . . .

not really debate, nadin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. If you say so, perhaps then you and him should use the ignore button

as is, have a good day. And no, like another poster you are going on the not ignore list, the not answerable list... Tiresome to play these games at times. They might be cute to you, but they are a pure and sheer waste of time.

[William Z. Foster]

92. you are not bothering me

You are the one complaining. All I am doing here is disagreeing with you. If that upsets you, then I guess you will have to put those who disagree with you on ignore.

[defendandprotect]

97. I only put people on "ignore" when they are disingenuous . . .

I haven't seen that in your posts . . .

You seem convinced of what you are saying --

too convinced to deal with what others are saying to you in return.

I'm certainly not trying to be "cute" with you -- rather I'm engaging in

"tiring" effort as well to try to help you clarify what you are trying to say.

[defendandprotect]

83. You are naively displaying an attitude which in the end ....

you will find self-defeating --

a belief in your own superiority isn't supportable, nadin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Nah I will leave the superiority to you

I am just talking of a CONCEPT that is alas, way above most people's ability to comprehend. I blame the US educational system for that... not the people themselves.

We seldom speak of what is required for civilizations. As to the poster you are referring to, after spending oh three days of wasting my time, I was honest with him, I have nothing but snark for him.

[defendandprotect]

99. I'm not the one giving people "clues" and claiming that anyone else here

can't "comprehend" because "it's way over their head" -- !!

I read what the poster was saying to you -- logical and meaningful -- and

you should reread it if you didn't get it first time around.

You have nothing but "snark" for anyone who disagrees with you --

and you are making yourself dismissable.

Have a good weekend.

[defendandprotect]

81. Agree with you . . . like saying the American people are addicted to war -- !!!

Nice post -- !!

:)

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. You might agree with him

but he missed the OP too. Again I am not talking about what you think I am talking. Think Maya, and how they went well over the carrying capacity of their civilization. Thinks bronze age...

by the way, speaking of the Bronze Age, you know those titans Homer speaks off... we call them bronze age civilizations... only thing left from them were massive buildings... that impressed those that came after them.

[William Z. Foster]

87. so what, big deal

Let's say I missed your point. So calmly and politely explain it then, rather than attacking people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. I did, I even gave you a clue

think global civilization, if you cannot think outside standard boxes, quite frankly it is not my problem. Have a good life.

[defendandprotect]

94. Cut the superiority act, nadin --

If you want any of your opinions to be taken seriously, this isn't the way to it!

[William Z. Foster]

95. why "clues?"

You must know what you intended to say in your OP, you read my response. Put together an intelligent post.

What is this stuff?

"I even gave you a clue..."

"if you cannot think outside standard boxes..."

"Have a good life..."

What boxes, what clues? Spell it out, make yourself understood. Make your case. If all you bare saying is "look at all of the oil we use" then why get upset and argue? Did you think people are unaware of that? Oil can be fairly easily replaced in all of your examples, yet you beat the drum for cutting back, giving up on things, accepting harsh reality etc. In a political climate of "austerity measures" being shoved down the working class peoples' throats because the investing class have gotten themselves into a mess, this has to set off alarm bells for all of us.

Here is what I understood you to say - that society is hugely dependent upon oil and this is the proper context for discussions about energy and energy-related disasters, that changing that would take a massive effort and sacrifices, and that this dependency expresses itself in out personal habits and daily lives. Twice (at least) you went out of your way to dismiss, or minimize the import of the calls for public transportation - yes it is part of the answer, you admitted, but not enough.

[defendandprotect]

91. We didn't miss the intent of your OP . . .

you miss the point of the responses --

and insults don't translate into debate as hard as you may be trying to make it so.


Again I am not talking about what you think I am talking.

If your post has been misinterpreted, then tell us how --

Think Maya, and how they went well over the carrying capacity of their civilization. Thinks bronze age...

Weren't you pushing some ridiculous story about Easter Island recently -- and the reality was

that it had been Europeans who had destroyed the natives -- quite the reverse of what you were

suggesting!


Most of our history is white male propaganda -- reverse it and you might arrive at some truth,

nadin.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Nah Eastern Island wasn't me

perhaps another person, bye.

[defendandprotect]

96. Well, that's good . . .

If you want to discuss collapsing civilizations, present some info on what

you are trying to put forth.

[Hempathy]

103. oil replaced slavery in the industrial age.

cheap labor was replaced by cheap energy.

[Hempathy]

100. why do you brew coffee at home, and then drive to the coffee shop for coffee...?

:shrug:

(I never touch the stuff, myself)

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. I had a cup at home

and another at the coffee shop... morning routine and it is MY cheap speed...

I actually do need it to function. Also I leave the pot for hubby.

[Hempathy]

104. "I actually do need it to function"

Pitiful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Well I guess you need pot

but seriously it is my cheap speed, replaced Ritalin a long time ago.

And if you cannot understand that, this is NOT my problem.